Not much to say about the Mueller report as there wasn’t much there worth reporting about. However, the reaction to the wind-up of the two-year long investigation requires a short take, although you’ve probably already had your fill by now.  Anyway…

The Mueller Report says that their investigation does not exonerate the president on the obstruction question. This line is causing angst all over Capitol Hill for all the wrong reasons.  The problem is that a prosecutor, which is what Mueller was, does not determine guilt or innocence.  A prosecutor’s only function is to determine whether or not there is enough evidence that makes it probable that a crime was committed, and, if so, to refer that case for criminal prosecution.

So, according to Mueller, there wasn’t enough evidence to refer an obstruction case against Trump for possible prosecution. Full stop. However, some people feel that Mueller needs to definitely say that Trump is innocent and if he fails to do so, then there are grounds for possible future investigation.  I am certainly not qualified to say whether there are grounds to prosecute Trump for obstruction of justice.  The only thing that we do know is that Mueller did not have sufficient evidence to refer the obstruction case for prosecution.

Here’s what we do know, though.  According to Mueller, there was no collusion between Trump and Russia.  The reason is that the only evidence that Mueller had in that regard was a bogus dossier bought and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign.  It was a dossier that the FBI relied upon in getting illegal FISA wiretap warrants to spy on the Trump campaign.  That we know for sure because of testimony given by DOJ and FBI personnel before the House Oversight and Judiciary Committee.

So, the only possible meddling by Russia in the 2016 presidential election would have had to have been on behalf of Hillary Clinton.  Further, it has now been made public that the Ukraine has opened up an investigation about meddling between its own government on behalf of Hillary Clinton. How could the media have gotten it so wrong?

Caitlin Johnstone, a liberal political commentator, put it this way, It has been obvious from the very beginning that the Maddow Muppets were being sold a lie…The insane, maniacal McCarthyite feeding frenzy that these people were plunged into by nonstop mass media propaganda drowned out the important voices who tried to argue that public energy was being sucked into Russia hysteria…Every politician, every media figure, every Twitter pundit and everyone who swallowed this moronic load of bull spunk has officially discredited themselves for life.”

Why is she so upset? Because the Democrats shot themselves in the foot by looking far worse than how they describe Trump. Far worse. They intentionally created the hysteria and then tried to blame it on Trump. Only it backfired. Spectacularly. Maybe, Pelosi et al. were secretly working for Trump to get him reelected.  If so, they may have just succeeded.

 

 

 

Advertisements

 

What’s up with the Jewish people here in America?  They keep supporting known anti-Semites. For example, how can one even begin to explain why the people of the 5thDistrict in Minnesota (which is heavily Jewish) elected Ilhan Omar to Congress? How could that have even happened? The following article in The Epoch Times sums up the situation quite nicely (see link).

https://www.theepochtimes.com/question-to-my-fellow-jews-how-can-you-still-vote-democrat_2849716.html

There is no doubt that the Democratic Party no longer supports Israel. No doubt. They support the Muslim cause instead. As a result, they tolerate anti-Semites in their midst (or, perhaps, it is a reflection of the fact that they are anti-Semitic themselves). That creates a problem for a party that claims to have the moral high ground.

It’s not just Democrats either. The Women’s March has refused to distance themselves from known anti-Semites such as Louis Farrakhan, Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory. Farrakhan and Sarsour, of course, are Muslims. Why women would want to be affiliated with Muslims, and by extension Sharia Law, is hard to fathom in any case.

It’s no coincidence that the Muslim cause has been supported in recent years, in both Europe and America, by the left-wing establishment.  Muslim atrocities in Africa and the Middle East, whereby Christians are routinely slaughtered, gets little to no press coverage and no consideration from the political establishment. While 50 Muslims die in a mosque in New Zealand, 120 Christians are killed by Islamic jihadists in Nigeria. A total of almost 2,000 non-Muslim people have been killed so far in 2019 by Muslims. Yet, hardly a peep of coverage by the media who refuse to label it for what it is: “Islamic terrorism.”  All we have is selective outrage over Muslim deaths which leads to the introduction of gun control measures and high-ranking female officials wearing hijabs.

So, when Jewish voters go to the polls in 2020, I wonder if they’ll remember that the Democratic Party has turned on them or do they just blindly vote Democratic as they have always done.  Either way, the rising anti-Semitism is a reflection of a bigger battle that is shaping up all across America. That battle includes a realignment of the political landscape which will now include Muslims but not Jews.  It’s a realignment that can not end well, regardless of the outcome. Hang on, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

 

“Five months after an antisemitic gunman murdered eleven Jews at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, the worst attack on Jews in American history, the Democratic Party is struggling to condemn antisemitism…Democrats cannot bring themselves to offer a simple, straightforward condemnation of the hatred of Jews. Nor can they find the political courage to punish Omar, who has repeatedly used antisemitic rhetoric even after objections from party leaders and intervention by her own constituents.”  – Joel Pollak

So, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez(AOC) thinks that her bad ratings are due to bias.  Well, if you need a bogeyman to blame things on, I guess that’s as good as any…or it could mean that she’s simply out of touch with the voting public.

Here’s a little background to consider:

  • AOC’s legislative assistant Dan Rifle thinks that every billionaire is a policy failure and he thinks that the priority for Democratic staffers should be to burn the system down (per the Washington Free Beacon).

Comment: Burning the system down is about as out-of-touch as you can get. As for billionaires, every billionaire is actually a policy success. That is, if you don’t incentivize people to take risks, you won’t have a healthy economy. An economy with no billionaires is called communism and I haven’t heard anyone promote that since…well, since Bernie Sanders (and maybe Waleed Shahid).

  •  Waleed Shahid, a former aide to AOC, has said that,“Democracy should mean taking power and wealth and making sure it belongs to everyone.”

Comment: First, America is a republic, not a democracy. Secondly, in any context, democracy is never about taking money from people and redistributing it. That’s more like communism, my friends.

  • More Waleed Shahid: “…the Democratic Party’s voters look more like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez than Chuck Shumer and Nancy Pelosi.”

Comment: According to Pew Research, about half of Democratic voters are white and half are persons of color. When Shahid and the Justice Democrats say that they represent the majority of Democratic voters it’s simply not true. They live in a bubble in New York City which is not representative of Democrats across the country. How’s that for diversity! Does Shahid even know where Keokuk, Iowa is or what the Democrats of that area want?  Of course not, and he could care less.  He looks around in their group and what does he see – mostly people of color, everyone is under 35 and virtually everyone is from the New York City area, and still he wants to claim that they represent the Democratic party better than Schumer and Pelosi.

  • AOC says that Democratic Party should target Democratic Representative Henry Cuellar from Texas in the 2020 election because his political views don’t match her own. She says, “Do we really want someone like that in the party?”

Comment: His views don’t match hers that’s true, but they do match a majority of Democratic voters from his own district.  After all, they elected him…to represent them in Congress. That’s true democracy in action.

 

So, when AOC complains about her ratings, here’s what’s she’s missing.  People dislike her because she’s for “open borders” which 75% of voters oppose  (according to a Gallup Poll).  Likewise, 75% of voters endorse “America First” which AOC opposes. Are you starting to get the picture, because apparently AOC does not.  Her poor ratings are not due to bias as she claims but to her simply being out of touch with mainstream America. What’s more, almost half of all Millennials polled by Gallup had an unfavorable opinion about AOC. Besides, Americans are a proud bunch. They don’t like their elected officials to tell them that they (the elected officials) are the boss. Especially, people in Keokuk, Iowa.

 

Epilogue

A new poll from Sienna College Research Institute shows that AOC’s favorability ratings in the state of New York have tanked. She’s at -13% as compared to Chuck Schumer at +10%. AOC’s approval rating is even lower than Trump (31% to 36%, respectively).  I wonder what AOC will have to say about that?

Or it could be that the following quote has something to do with why AOC’s favorability rating is so low. From AOC: “Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs.”

 

 

So, the polling season has already begun.  A new Harvard/Harris Poll shows the following results:

Percentage of people who would vote for a candidate who supports:

  • America First – 75%
  • Strong immigration policy – 75%
  • A nationalistic trade policy (pro-tariffs) – 65%
  • Anti-war – 74%

That doesn’t bode well for socialist candidates like AOC.

However, on the bright side, socialist candidates will have a strong appeal among the poor, unemployed workers, students and millennials who are willing to trade personal freedoms for cradle-to-grave support from the government.  Also, socialists will appeal to various “cause groups” like Women’s Rights groups and LGBT. One other group worth mentioning that will support the socialist cause is the bi-coastal elites who are critically important because they will provide the money to sustain socialist political efforts, especially for a national election.

Why would the elites support socialist causes? Why, indeed. It sounds counterintuitive to say that the elites support socialism. Everyone knows that the elites prefer capitalism, right? Actually, the elites are for any system that puts money in their pockets and allows them to exert greater control over the masses. Capitalism has served its purpose (as far as the elites are concerned). In today’s world, they would actually prefer socialism so that they could do away with personal freedoms. You see, the middle class can really get in the way of their plans for total control.

With such a strong split in political preferences, 2020 does offer the outside possibility of a third-party candidate. I guess that Howard Schultz would like to be that somebody.  Hank Adler wrote a novel entitled From Three To Five talking about how a third-party candidate could throw the election into the House of Representatives where arcane rules would come into play. Those rules could well lead to the election of a third-party candidate.

Welcome to the jungle. Let the polling begin.

 

So, AOC got it half right. Got to give her props for that.

  • It’s true that the system doesn’t work because both political parties are corrupt and the 1% is in charge.
  • We’ve got to think big, really big and we need the Green New Deal.  Wrong. Dead wrong (no pun intended).

Here’s another idea that is half right. From AOC: “It’s not a CEO that’s actually creating four billion dollars a year. It is the millions of workers in this country that’s creating billions of dollars of economic productivity a year.”

  • The CEO doesn’t create company profits. That’s true (generally speaking).
  • The workers in this country create billions of dollars of economic productivity.  That’s false.

For example, what is AOC going to say when robotics run factories? Is she going to still say that workers produce the profits? I think not. Profits are, in actuality, a function of investment (of the owner/stockholders). Problem is that AOC wants to do away with profits by giving the profits to the workers. However, in that case there will be no new investment and eventually – no profits. That’s what capitalism is all about.  Investors take the risk of making the investments and in return are rewarded with the profits, if there are any.

With AOC, however, capitalism will be replaced with socialism because capitalism is “irredeemable”, as she puts it. It apparently doesn’t matter that the Industrial Revolution has been driven by capitalism which is responsible for almost all of the progress in the world over the last 200 years.  Let’s just kill the goose that laid the golden egg (capitalism and freedom). Why? Simply, because it wasn’t her idea.  You can’t take over (and become the boss) unless you come up with a new system, a new way to run everything.  After all, revolutions have to have a rallying cry.

As Waleed Shahid, a former aide to AOC, put it, “ You run an insurgent anti-establishment campaign to get into office to become the establishment.”  So, the objective is to become the establishment, displacing everything and everyone in the process. Here’s the strategy: attack the status quo, create division, appeal to the have-nots and use wealth transfers as a way to create “social justice.” You create the problem, then you propose the solution…and, then, you take over, or as Waleed Shahid said you become the establishment.  It’s right out of the playbook of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals.”

So, AOC, microphone in hand, recently addressed an audience about her Green New Deal saying,  “You try. You do it. Cause you’re not. Cause you’re not.  Until you do it, I’m the boss.” The audience laughed, but you should not be laughing. She’s dead serious (again, no pun intended). She created the problem and she has proposed the solution (the Green New Deal). She threw down the challenge.  The thing is, though, none was really necessary.  By that, I mean that a solution isn’t required. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.  The Constitution isn’t broke.  Capitalism isn’t broke.  Sure there are problems, but be careful of radical solutions to something that has basically worked for 200 years.  It’s the most successful and longest running governmental and economic system in history.

There’s a reason why the Founding Fathers in their wisdom gave us the system that they did.  I don’t see why a 29 year-old former bartender would know better although obviously she thinks that she does. That’s why she’s for giving economic security to those that are unwilling to work or getting Americans to not eat meat because cows fart.  By the way, has anyone figured out how we’re going to grow food to feed 7 billion people and transport that food to market, all without the use of fossil fuel? Not a problem; as AOC says, “Just think big.”

 

Epilogue

The thing about a social welfare state is that it is incompatible with an “open borders” policy, although AOC is insisting on both. With both, everyone in the world will come here until we’re a third world nation ourselves.  In fact, we won’t even be a nation because nations are defined as having borders. Let that sink in.  We won’t even be a nation. Maybe, that was really the idea all along.

 

Nothing’s for free in the world. Somebody has to pay for it. The people who are going to to pay for it are us — the millennials and young people…”socialism is what destroyed Venezuela.”  – Daniel Martino, who was born and raised in Caracas, Venezuela.

 

 

There’s a new sheriff in the House by the name of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC). She’s young, bright, good-looking, and oozing with personality.  In short, she’s a superstar.  Oh, did I mention that she says things that no one can quite figure out? She would have been perfect for Art Linkletter’s TV show “Kids Say The Darndest Things”, except that AOC is 29 years old.  Here’s a sample:

AOC called out Fox News as being  “AOC TMZ” (whatever that means) and blamed Fox for her poor favorability rating in a new poll. She added: “If you want to know what subconscious bias looks like, it’s a headline saying “AOC is underwater with every group EXCEPT women, nonwhites, and 18-34 year olds’. So older, conservative white men are considered “everyone” and everyone else is discounted as an exception. Cool.” So, here’s all the problems with her tweet.

  • Fox had nothing to do with the poll (which was reported by Gallup) and nothing to do with the purported “headline” which was buried in a tweet from a person discussing the Gallup Poll.
  • AOC blames Fox for her bad poll numbers because the whole world supposedly listens to Fox and they have biased reporting. Note: As if, the other networks don’t have biased reporting and haven’t subconsciously biased their viewers to like AOC.  To be fair, more people by far watch all other media news shows than watch Fox.
  • AOC comments that the headline says that older, conservative white men are considered ”everyone” and everyone else is discounted as an exception. Well, no one actually said that, certainly not Fox News. That’s simply her own bias showing through in the words that she chose.

AOC commented on the mass shooting in New Zealand at a mosque saying: “What good are your thoughts & prayers when they don’t even keep the pews safe?” I guess AOC doesn’t have much respect for people of faith as she appears to be mocking religion, especially Islam.  That is, praying to your god doesn’t work. Yikes!

AOC says that, because of climate change, we have to implement the Green New Deal or we’ll all be dead in twelve years.  Well, AOC forgot to mention that there is no scientific consensus on climate change.  In fact, all the recent news on climate change says that the weather is getting colder, not hotter.  Besides, even if you believe the global warming doomsday scenario, it won’t do the world any good if the U. S. implements the Green New Deal because the rest of the world isn’t going to follow suit. Other countries are not going to get rid of fossil fuels, airplanes, cars and cows.  Simply, not going to happen.

In a House committee meeting, AOC made the following statement: “…the lack of the citizenship question leads to the problem that aliens that do not actually reside in the United States are still counted for congressional apportionment services. Of course, they do reside in the United States. They reside in my district. They’re my constituents.” The problem with that statement is that illegal aliens are not citizens and therefore have no representation in Congress.  Fact check: Therefore, AOC does not have illegal aliens who are her constituents.  However, she feels that she has a need to represent them anyway which is obvious to anyone who watched the proceedings of that meeting.

Oh, well, Art Linkletter is off the air but at least we have AOC to give us a few laughs.

 

Epilogue

Greenpeace Co-Founder Patrick Moore has an interesting take on the Green New Deal. He says that if we DO implement the Green New Deal, half the people in the world will die whereas AOC thinks that we’ll all die if we don’t. I wonder who I should believe, a politician or an environmentalist?

 

 

 

 

When is a democracy not a democracy? Answer: When it’s the United States of America.  Let me explain.

Everyone thinks that the U. S. is a democracy – political commentators, talking heads and most members of Congress. Really.  Maybe, even you too.  Here’s why they’re all wrong.

From Differ: “In a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a ‘pure democracy’, the majority is not restrained in this way and can impose its will on the minority.”

Well, the Constitution of the United States did not establish a democracy. What it has established, however, is a republic – for each state. A republic distributes power through citizen participation in government. So, the government is composed of our elected representatives, who are us, the people.  That’s where the phrase the government is of the people (and by the people and for the people) comes from.

The term democracy gets kicked around a lot these days. The use of the term democracy in this country suggests that some of those that use that term want our country to be a democracy rather than a republic.  For example, Nancy Pelosi has mentioned that the 2ndAmendment should be ditched by the next Democratic president (through executive order I presume).

It’s kind of important for the voters to understand what they might be voting for. Do they want to vote for those that would turn our republic into a democracy or do they want to keep the republic? The biggest difference is the inalienable rights.  Do you want the people in power in Washington to tell you what your rights are or do you want the protection offered by The Constitution?

You should know what your elected officials stand for.  After all, those representatives are, in effect, us. They represent us. They are supposed to pass legislation that reflects the will of the people (their constituents). They work for us, on our behalf and not the other way around.  So, the next time one of your representatives tells you “I’m the boss”, tell them to go read the Constitution.

 

 

 

 

 

First of all, what’s not to love about Socialism.  Lots of free stuff courtesy of the government.  Problem is that someone has to eventually pay for it.  As Margaret Thatcher reputably said, “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

Socialism has a solution for everything. Problem is that those kind of solutions never work. Government is not the answer to a problem…it usually is the problem. National Economics Editorial.com published an article on solutions proposed by Socialism. Here’s a few excerpts:

 “Unemployment?  Create jobs.  Poverty?  Provide welfare.  High rents?  Impose rent controls… socialism is redistributive: the government taxes productive industries and individuals and gives the proceeds to unproductive or non-productive industries and individuals… redistribution virtually guarantees that our economic resources will be used inefficiently, and this makes everyone a little bit poorer.”

“A 2017 study from Stanford University looked at the effect of rent control laws in San Francisco.  They found that… rent control hurt the very people it was supposed to help.”

“…studies from Harvard University and the National Bureau of Economic Research conclusively show that minimum wage increases hurt minimum wage earners the most.”

Regardless of how many gain or lose from Socialism, what’s not to love, though, about getting paid for not working. That’s what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is promoting. At least, that’s what she says now. Later, who knows. You can never trust a politician, now can you?

Worldviews do change, though. I should know since I was a socialist once.  I was young and idealistic…and stupid. After all, what did I know?  Never had a real job.  Took economics in college, but economics demonstrated that socialism didn’t work. Didn’t matter.  I simply knew better.  Ditto the millennials.  Like me, then, they’ve rarely had a real job and have been brainwashed by universities and social media. So, how would they know? They don’t, but they are willing to blindly follow the Pied Piper down the road to oblivion as long as the government promises to pay for everything, especially the student loans.

California has already paved that road to oblivion with its own socialist brand which has turned the state from being a shining example of everything that was right with America to everything that is wrong with America. California, despite taxing its residents to death, has literally become a s***hole, with tent cities sprouting up everywhere (even downtown San Francisco and Los Angeles). People are leaving the state by the droves. Eventually, this is what the entire country will look like under Socialism, except that there will be no where to leave to.

So, despite the fact that Socialism has never worked, socialists say that “this time” it will. Of course, there is absolutely no reason to believe them. Socialism is simply their ticket to power. Viva Venezuela!

 

“Socialists cry ‘Power to the people’ and raise the clenched fist as they say it.  We all know what they really mean – power over people, power to the State.” – Margaret Thatcher

 

It’s interesting the different ways that different people have reacted to the continuing drama that is Rep. Ilhan Omar.  The latest is David Duke, the former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, an acknowledged racist and an anti-Semite. Duke publicly defended Rep. Ilhan calling her the “most important member of the US Congress.” So, now we have one racist defending another racist. Well, two because Louis Farrakhan supports her too.  For that matter, the racist Congressional Black Caucus group is defending her as well.

However, let’s be brutally honest.  All people discriminate and a majority of people are racist.  All races discriminate against other racial groups.  So, the majority of them are racist too.  Politicians?  Of course, they are racist, Republicans and Democrats alike.

While it’s not surprising that racism has reared its ugly head in Congress, it is surprising to see the way the Democratic Party has handled it.  Columnist Joel Pollak put it this way, “Five months after an antisemitic gunman murdered eleven Jews at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, the worst attack on Jews in American history, the Democratic Party is struggling to condemn antisemitism…Democrats cannot bring themselves to offer a simple, straightforward condemnation of the hatred of Jews. Nor can they find the political courage to punish Omar, who has repeatedly used antisemitic rhetoric even after objections from party leaders and intervention by her own constituents.”  Rep.Ted Deutch, a Florida Democrat, echoed those sentiments as he criticized his party’s leaders for their failure to  condemn Omar, “Why are we unable to singularly condemn anti-Semitism?” Yeah, tell everyone why.

So, do they deny that members of their Party are racist? In a word, no. Instead of condemning anti-Semitism, the Democratic Party would rather point fingers at the racism of others as a defense.  Of course, we understand that the people they are referring to may well be racist too. However, it doesn’t matter.  When you tolerate racism, that makes you a racist. The Democratic Party has spoken loud and clear with their House resolution on bigotry, especially with what it failed to mention. I can only imagine what the world-wide ramifications will be with respect to anti-Semitism now.  If we can’t defend minorities in this country, what might happen to them elsewhere?

 

Epilogue

The Middle Eastern Women’s Coalition, a distinguished group of American women from Middle Eastern descent, recently called for the resignation of Rep. Omar. So, apparently not every Middle Eastern Woman is an anti-Semite.  In fact, far from it.  Apparently, it’s only those in Congress.

 

“Racism does not have a good track record. It’s been tried out for a long time and you’d think by now we’d want to put an end to it instead of putting it under new management.”  – Thomas Sowell

The Democrats would love everyone to believe that they stand for social justice, but their actions belie their platitudes.  You just can’t say one thing and do another.  That’s the definition of political suicide.  Here’s the problem.

Rep. Ilhan Omar suffers from a serious political disease.  It’s called foot-in-mouth disease. She doesn’t even seem to understand the seriousness of her public comments. That’s because she is who she is – a racist pure and simple.  The question is what, if anything, are the Democrats going to do about her.

If Omar is allowed to keep her seat in Congress, it will signal to the world that the Democratic Party tolerates, and maybe even supports, racism. Motions of censure are pathetic, at best. If you are going to be the champion of minority groups, you have to be true to your beliefs. It’s sort of like #MeToo. It has to be applied equally to everyone and I do mean everyone.  Otherwise, people will see the situation for what it is – pandering for votes.

And yet…Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders publicly support Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Omar are best friends (politically speaking). So, who speaks for the average American regarding anti-Semitism? Who speaks for the Jewish people? Apparently, not the Democratic Party. Not anymore at least.

However, the racism issue doesn’t stop there for Democrats. Jussie Smollett has all but disappeared from the headlines, but the stain remains.  Democrats came out immediately and supported his claims before any facts were even available, and then backed away when the truth became known. However, they never publicly renounced him.  That’s the problem. So, the world sees the actions of the Democratic Party for what it is – tacit support for racism.

The Democratic Party is bleeding voter loyalty everywhere.  Hispanics are leaving because the Party supports unlimited immigration, costing them employment opportunities.  Blacks (Blexit) are leaving for a multitude of reasons.  Many blacks feel ripped off by Obama because he never really supported the black community (e.g. jobs, crime). They also oppose immigration for the same reason that Hispanics do.  Then, there is prison reform which the blacks say is needed because of legislation which discriminated against them, legislation which was the brainchild of then President Bill Clinton back in 1994.

So, while espousing their ideals for social justice and the improvement of the lives of disadvantaged people everywhere, the Democrats have proven that they don’t always live up to those ideals, not for Hispanics, not for blacks and certainly not for Jews. So, good luck writing the party’s 2020 presidential platform.  Who’s going to believe them?

 

Epilogue

So, the other day, AOC accused CPAC of Islamophobia.  Well, the context of her remarks was the deadly 2015 shooting in California carried out by Muslim terrorists. So, if being afraid of Muslim terrorists makes one a Islamophobe, then I suspect that we may have a country full of Islamophobes.  In a time of political turmoil, AOC chose to support Muslims, in general, and her colleague Omar, who is a Muslim, in particular instead of directly addressing the anti-Semitic remarks of Omar. Therefore, how long can she pretend that she, herself, isn’t a racist too?